Chattisgarh High Court
Budh Ram And Anr vs Bishnath And Ors on 28 July, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Second Appeal No.156 of 2012
1. Budh Ram, S/o Jagtu Ram, aged about 54 years,
2. Budhu Ram, S/o Jagtu Ram, aged about 51 years,
Both are R/o Village Kumhari, Revenue Circle Lawan, Tahsil Baloda
Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.)
(Defendants)
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Bishnath, S/o Janak Ram, aged about 59 years, R/o Village Kumhari,
Revenue Circle Lawan, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.)
(Plaintiff)
2. Dhansai Sahu (Patwari), aged about 45 years, R/o Village Pawni,
Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.)
3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.)
---- Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants / Defendants: Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 / State: Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
28/07/2021
1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video
conferencing.
2. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in
this second appeal preferred by the appellants herein / defendants
No.1 & 2.
3. By the impugned judgment, the first appellate Court has dismissed the
appeal preferred by defendants No.1 & 2 affirming the judgment &
decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit.
4. Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants herein / defendants No.1 & 2, would submit that both
the Courts below have concurrently erred in holding that the plaintiff
has proved his title over the suit land and he is entitled for declaration
of title and permanent injunction by recording a finding which is
perverse to the record and as such, the second appeal deserves to be
admitted by formulating substantial question of law.
5. I have considered the submission made on behalf of the appellants
herein / defendants No.1 & 2 and went through the record with utmost
circumspection.
6. The plaintiff filed suit that he is title holder of Khasra No.757, area
0.049 hectare and it is his ancestral property in which he is in
possession since his ancestors, but defendants No.1 & 2 got their
names mutated in collusion with defendant No.3 which was sought to
be corrected by the plaintiff by making application before the Tahsildar
and which was rejected leading to threatening by defendants No.1 & 2
and which further compelled the plaintiff to file suit for declaration of
title and permanent injunction which the defendants opposed holding
that they are in possession. The trial Court after appreciating oral and
documentary evidence available on record, recorded a finding that the
plaintiff is title holder and possession holder of the suit land, it is his
ancestral property and defendants No.1 & 2 have no right and title
over the suit land. The said decree has been affirmed by the first
appellate Court. The finding recorded by the two Courts below
holding that the plaintiff is title holder and possession holder of the suit
land and further he is entitled for decree of declaration of title and
permanent injunction is a finding based on the evidence available on
record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not find
any substantial question of law for admission of the second appeal.
Accordingly, the second appeal deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No order as to
cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Soma
